On Tuesday, March 6, 2007, Catholic apologist and author Dave Armstrong challenged Protestant apologist and author James White to a public online debate covering the proposed topic: "Theological Definition of “Christian” / Is Catholicism Properly Called “Christian”?

White’s response, given just 12 hours later, was as follows [Dave’s comments in blue]:

Dave:

You have got to be kidding. I gave you your chance in the past. You ducked and ran. We both know it. I challenged you to public debate.

You refused. I reviewed your book and took it apart. You ran.

[Nope; it had nothing to do with “running”. I simply stopped participating in the exchange because White had made it almost entirely a vehicle for personal insult. In the early part, when he was actually making some arguments about the [/COLOR]book, I replied to everything]

Your credibility rating is 0.0. You are all verbiage, zero substance. What is more, given your obsession with me, your playing with photos, even posting pictures from my blog recently, I consider you a stalker, nothing more. Stay out of the chat channel, as you are not a welcome guest. Your arrogance knows no limitations and your hubris is likewise without bounds. Further, your continual pattern of “promise/vow” followed by “woops, I didn’t mean that” makes your very integrity and honesty highly suspect. I would invite you get some help with your obsessive/compulsive problem. Learn to live your life focused upon positive things rather than upon your obsession with me. I have not said a word about you in ages, because I have no interest in your re-tread Catholic apologetics, and I am focused upon important things.

As it is, I have two weeks to put together an entire presentation on the tomb/resurrection controversy. So please, get some help, find some happiness and move on.

James>>>

Would anyone, Catholic or Protestant, consider that a Christian response from Mr. White? :nope:

Given Mr. White’s own obsession with debating (estimates of his debates range from dozens into the hundreds) and his previous attempts to debate Mr. Armstrong in a live face-to-face format, the acidic response from Mr. White seems very curious indeed.

Would anyone, Catholic or Protestant, consider that a Christian response from Mr. White? :nope:

Given Mr. White’s own obsession with debating (estimates of his debates range from dozens into the hundreds) and his previous attempts to debate Mr. Armstrong in a live face-to-face format, the acidic response from Mr. White seems very curious indeed.

Hey Randy
Dave Armstrong’s Christian response to Mr. White?

On a humorous note, the whole “photo” trumped-up controversy merely proves White’s hyper-sensitivity and inability to take what he dishes out. He has become almost a self-parodied caricature of the dour, humorless, stuffed-shirt Scottish Calvinist (me being Scottish, I can say that). He gets an artist friend to make caricatures of others and to mock them. I was portrayed twice: as a hateful, spiteful, sadistic person (here; scroll halfway down), and then as an outright liar. He had Pat Madrid being stoned as an idolater (on this page halfway down).

I simply took a picture of his once and stretched it horizontally. Heaven forbid!!! Harmless fun. Another time I posted the caricature that his artist, “Angelz” did of White himself (that White loves!: see it on this page: scroll about halfway down). White told me to take down the caricature, as I did not have permission.

That being the case, I went and got a photograph that has appeared on a Mormon site (see right above this paragraph), taken by someone else, since White had no control over it. Later, I changed the color for fun, to make it look like a negative, and I played around with the color of another photo, too (below).

Just innocent, poking of fun, precisely because James acted in such a pompous, self-important manner. It is his own silliness and legalism about pictures that has brought all this about. I’ve never seen anyone else act as hyper-sensitive as this about utterly harmless stuff.

I could say a lot about his other stupid, factually-challenged remarks in his reply, too, but the above will be sufficient, and I don’t want to go down that road, anyway (having recently decided to turn the other cheek when insulted (man, it’s hard to do that!). I was looking for serious debate. Obviously that will not take place. I virtually knew that even before I made the challenge. But it is important to note these things for the record once and for all.

On one hand I say, who cares? They both seem like head cases. On the other hand…well actually I will keep it on one hand:D

Armstrong is lucky to have guys like White and James Swan around. It’s gives him fodder for his neverending drone. Really, how many times have you visited his blog when he isn’t complaining about someone? It’s what he does.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2007, Catholic apologist and author Dave Armstrong challenged Protestant apologist and author James White to a public online debate covering the proposed topic: "Theological Definition of “Christian” / Is Catholicism Properly Called “Christian”?

White’s response, given just 12 hours later, was as follows [Dave’s comments in blue]:

Would anyone, Catholic or Protestant, consider that a Christian response from Mr. White? :nope:

Given Mr. White’s own obsession with debating (estimates of his debates range from dozens into the hundreds) and his previous attempts to debate Mr. Armstrong in a live face-to-face format, the acidic response from Mr. White seems very curious indeed.

I would say since business is up White has time to brush off a challenge, if this Jesus tomb thing wasnt in the news white whould have had no problem with the debate.

As for how White debates, the few debates I have heard, White was more intent on demonizing the opponent rather than focusing on the debate.

Your credibility rating is 0.0. You are all verbiage, zero substance. What is more, given your obsession with me, your playing with photos, even posting pictures from my blog recently, I consider you a stalker, nothing more.>>

Aug: Perfect example the “pot calling the kettle black”; “Obsession” is one of Mr. White’s prominent attributes. For just a few examples, go to his website (www.aomin.org) and in the search engine type in “Caner”; “Owen”; and “Mouw” to see who really has an “obsession” complex.

Stay out of the chat channel, as you are not a welcome guest. Your arrogance knows no limitations and your hubris is likewise without bounds.>>

Aug: Hmmm…I truly wonder whose “arrogance knows no limitations”…

I would invite you get some help with your obsessive/compulsive problem. Learn to live your life focused upon positive things rather than upon your obsession with me.>>

Aug: Mr. White, look in the mirror!

I have not said a word about you in ages, because I have no interest in your re-tread Catholic apologetics, and I am focused upon important things.>>

Armstrong is lucky to have guys like White and James Swan around. It’s gives him fodder for his neverending drone. Really, how many times have you visited his blog when he isn’t complaining about someone? It’s what he does.

To the contrary, it is White who hashes and rehashes his debates with Catholics…just this past week he revisited a 10-year-old debate with Fr. Stravinskas. Talk about “neverending”…

If you review “The White Man’s Burden” by Patrick Madrid and published by Catholic Answers shortly after the famous “Sola Scriptura” debate, you will see that White routinely stalked Catholic Apologists as he set about making a name for himself. Madrid wrote back in 1993:

A man barely out of his twenties, he has already garnered a reputation as a debate junkie. I don’t mean that he’s been in lots of debates–that’s fine, of course; I’ve been in plenty myself–I mean he craves debates. He chases after Catholic apologists, issuing challenges to debate, appearing almost frantic to goad someone, anyone, into a fight…He has sent debate challenges via registered mail so his prey cannot claim not to have received them. I know: I received such a letter. After ignoring his taunts for quite a while, I decided to debate him. I had two reasons. First, I wanted to demonstrate that his arguments for sola scriptura can’t withstand biblical and logical scrutiny. Second, he needed to be refuted because he preaches a false gospel and leads people away from Christ’s truth.

There is nothing I can do to make God love me less, but there is much that I can do to please him more. “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do goodworks, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:10)

The cartoon is uncharitable on its face. If you post the cartoon on your website, then presumbably you condone it.

I recently sent an e-mail to Dave asking him if he thought world-wide christian unity amongst the mainstream churches was possible ; and if so would sincere efforts for unification emanate from Africa or America ?
He replied saying that unity was indeed possible , but coming from America…no way !!!
I wonder what jesus would say ???!:mad:

What are you talking about Manny?
Why is it wrong for Kaycee to show something from a website but Randy is doing the SAME thing?
Explain that.
Both are showing quotes or cartoons but somehow Kaycee is wrong???